> > least for me). Because it "disregards" (I'm not sure if that word fit's > the real meaning that I want to transmit here) geography in some sense, > and because of this it is in some sense "misunderstandable" ... and it >
The best argument against the term Neogeography is that it, as you say, disregards the breadth and depth of Geography. > maybe leads to make the assumption that this "movement" was originated > from geography what is NOT the case from my point of view. I don't think anyone subscribes to the notion that the Neogeography "movement" originated from Geography. But what does it mean to say that anything "originated from Geography"? Do you mean to say that it wasn't sanctioned by the AAG? Or that it wasn't peer reviewed? While it might not directly evolve from a peer-reviewed navel gazing, it does derive from geography in that it deals with geographic concepts. It also happens to do so in a form not well explored by academics (note: I didn't say "not" explored as plenty of us have). There's nothing Neo- about names and confusion with Geography. How many times do people say you study Geology? -Eric -- -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818 USGS Geographer Center of Excellence in GIScience PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
